Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Well done to the committee for producing this document on the important issue of bogus self-employment. The first introduction that Deputy Collins and I got to this issue was on picket lines outside building sites on many a cold morning. Some of the first of those were probably more than decade ago, perhaps 15 years ago. It is scary to think about how long ago some of those pickets took place outside the premises of some big, wealthy building contractors that are still operating.

Building Workers against the Black Economy was one of the activist groups that was established to highlight the plight facing its members in terms of bogus self-employment. They literally and metaphorically stood out in the cold and were victimised and blacklisted for protesting over bogus self-employment. There was a large irony to that. One of the refrains the workers would repeat was that they had to go on strike and protest for the right to pay tax. The rich in this country do everything they can to avoid paying tax but those workers had to go out on strike for the right to pay tax. That is the truth of all this. It is deeply ironic, but that is what the struggle against bogus self-employment was about for the workers. It was about the right to pay tax and the right to have the benefits and employment security that flow from that.

Those workers were up against big building contractors that did not want to pay PRSI or to have any obligations to workers. Those contractors did not want to pay sick pay or to have to pay workers if work was rained off or whatever. They would go to horrendous ends, much of which I witnessed first-hand. Nasty tactics were deployed against the workers who tried to highlight the issue. I pay particular tribute to a man who has since passed away in tragic circumstances, Mr. Billy McClurg, a bricklayer from my area. He was one among many fantastic activists who suffered as a consequence of their actions.

Some of them never worked in the building industry again because they sought to highlight bogus self-employment. It has taken this long to get here but I am glad it is now officially acknowledged that this is a serious problem and we must do something about it.

It was very heartening to hear departmental advertisements advise people who believe they have been misclassified that there are places they can go now and that it is acknowledged. It is a pity it has taken so long but at least we have come some way in that regard. There is no doubt that bogus self-employment is still going on. Everybody is losing out. The workers obviously lose out. We do not know the exact scale of bogus self-employment. I believe an Irish Congress of Trade Unions report estimated it could be costing the Exchequer €600 million per year. The 2018 intervention in the building industry by the joint investigation unit and scope section, which identified 500 workers who were misclassified by building contractors, yielded the State an extra €60 million. Those 500 workers resulted in €60 million in additional revenue that year. We can see what a big loss this is to society in terms of tax revenue. Obviously, it is also a loss to the workers who are treated this way and are then vulnerable. Of course, the other big advantage of bogus self-employment is the idea of a hire them and fire them workforce that can just be got rid of because there is absolutely no obligation to them.

I am very glad we are moving forward on this issue. I hope the Government will take on the recommendations. The onus should be put on employers to prove they are fully compliant, not misclassifying people and so on. One point I really want to make is that if such employers are identified, they should be hauled over the coals for everything. It should not just involve an individual adjudication which, of course, the employers appeal in many cases. It is often at the appeal that decisions get overturned. I take the point about the scope section responding and it does respond. It often goes into an organisation and finds that the workers are right but then the barristers come out for the employers. They wheel in the heavy guns against the workers who do not, in many cases, have any representation. Sometimes they have union representation but other times they do not have any representation. They certainly cannot afford barristers and so on. Decisions get overturned at the appeals level in many cases and the matter gets dragged out. In the meantime, the workers are out in the cold and often blacklisted at that point.

There is one recommendation I would like to make to the Government and the Department if they are serious about this. First, if any employer is found to have bogusly misclassified workers, there should be a forensic audit of everything it does. That audit could involve every single employee and all the employer's accounts and books. The whole thing should be gone through with a fine-tooth comb because if there are one or two cases, it can be guaranteed there is more dirt in that company. We should go after such employers to provide a real deterrent that will stop these people doing what they are doing. While they may have got caught in that instance, very often they will just carry on regardless. That must be stamped out.

The second recommendation I will make, which I hope the committee and Government will take on board, is that where a company or employer that is guilty of bogus self-employment is in receipt of public money, that money should be stopped immediately. There should be a big black mark over that company preventing it from getting any public money in future until it has wiped the slate clean, having been fully sanctioned and penalised, the truth established and so on. Too often, the same companies involved in this sharp practice of exploiting workers, breaking the law and robbing the taxpayer get a slap over the wrist and are back in business and getting Government contracts, funding, grants and tax breaks the next week. There is, therefore, no real deterrent. That has to stop.

I did not hear if the Minister of State responded on the recommendation about the blacklisting legislation. That needs to come forward. That is a serious business. Blacklisting is a real thing and it must be stamped out. I appeal to the Government, as the committee has recommended, to bring forward the blacklisting legislation.

I may not get answers now but I am hoping perhaps the officials or the Minister of State will respond to the issues I raise. I would like to see the scope section and the joint investigation unit expanded in respect of the resources available to them. In addition, they should deal not only with bogus self-employment but any breach of employment rights and employment legislation. Perhaps they already do so; I do not fully understand all these mechanisms but I do not think that is the case.

I have raised one issue repeatedly and I would really like the Government to go after this. Sometimes, we think these things only go on in construction or maybe Deliveroo. RTÉ, the respectable State broadcaster, was found to be engaged in massive bogus self-employment and misclassification of staff. There is another area where this kind of sharp practice of bogus self-employment goes on. The scope section has found in favour of a couple of workers in the film industry which is in receipt of substantial State money every year. I do not think anybody wants to investigate the industry. I think the view is that because these are the glamourous film people, we should not look into it too much. It might be too much of a can of worms. Bogus self-employment is taking place, however.

Another practice that is taking place - this is why I would like to see the scope section's remit expanded - is abuse of the fixed-term workers legislation whereby workers accumulate service for employers in the film industry but the employers do not want to recognise that service. They do not want to acknowledge it, even though they must do so under EU law and the fixed-term workers Act. The employers then go into the Workplace Relations Commission and argue that they are not actually the employer. They say they get all this money from the Government to employ people but they do not actually have any employees. That is what they say to the WRC. When the workers tell the WRC that their rights have been abused, the employers argue that while these people worked on their film, they are not technically their employer and, therefore, they have no obligations to those workers. I would like to workers to be able to tell other agencies, not just the WRC but agencies such the scope section, the joint investigation unit and similar bodies, that this is happening and ask for an inspection or investigation to establish that something is going on in order that action can be taken.

See this speech in context